Robert Redford says republicans are racist

[justplugit]

Redford is very good at telling stories.
A River Runs Through It, one of my favorites.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't believe he was a wizard, but regardless...he got caught up in it when he was young and had long since repudiated the klan. You do realize you're stretching back to the 1940's don't you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He started a brand new chapter in WV, recruiting 150 of his buddies. Maybe he wasn't a wizard, I shouldn't have said that. Here is a quote from the man who was 4th in line for the Presidency...

"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds"

But nothing to see here according to Spence, because Byrd just "got caught up in it".

He apologized many times for his deeds, that's a fact. He also used the n-word until the year of his death. Google it.

But Spence knows what's in the guy's heart. he's a democrat, therefore he's above reproach. We aren't allowed to disparage him.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

He didn't claim register Republicans are all racist. What are you reading?

He said that SOME in Congress are motivated partly by racism. On this he's 100% correct. He also said some motivation is a reluctance to change. On this he's also 100% correct. He's it's akin to saying they oppose Obama because they're conservatives.

Oh, the horror.

-spence

Spence, for the last time, I am not suggesting that Redford feels 'all Republicans' are racist. He specifically accused sthe ones in Congress, who helped force the shutdown, of being racist (news to white supremacists like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio).

"He said that SOME in Congress are motivated partly by racism. On this he's 100% correct"

You make that accusation with NO support, yet you continually chastise the conservatives for engaging in speculation.

So Spence denies that Robert Byrd (an admitted Klansmen who used the n-word until the year of his death) is racist. But Spence is fine calling some congressional Republicans racist, with no proof whatsoever.

In other words, you ignore irrefutable proof that an influential Democrat was a racist, but feel justified in using that label on Republicans, with no proof whatsoever.

Whew! Robert Byrd is not a racist, but Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are! Thanks for straightening that out Spence.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

He said that SOME in Congress are motivated partly by racism. On this he's 100% correct.


Name 1 please......


He also said some motivation is a reluctance to change. On this he's also 100% correct.

Name a human being that isn't motivated by a reluctance to change, partcularly if the change is not a positive change


He's it's akin to saying they oppose Obama because they're conservatives.

no clue what that sentence means


Oh, the horror.

-spence

it was stupid....but we're used to you defending stupid and indefensible as long as they are aligned politically with you

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

When even you know that you cannot debate what the Republicans are saying, when what they are saying is so irrefutably correct, there's always the race card. Say it ain't so, Sundance.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...ernment-648982

I am 'racist' and 'afraid of change'.

When the Nazis occupied France, some French formed the resistance, to fight back. Would Redford accuse them of being 'afraid of change', because they didn't embrace Hitler?

You know what? When the 'change' is mathematically guaranteed to cause ruin, you're goddamned right I'm afraid of it.

Are these people really this stupid? Does Redford genuinely believe that fiscal responsibility is based on racism? Or do these billionaire liberals want the economy to collapse, because that will make them even more wealthy than the rest of us? I ponder that sometimes. In the short-term, liberal economics eliminates economic upward mobility for the poor, by enslaving them to welfare. In the long term, te entitlements that liberals support, cannot fail to bring large scale economic harm to those that are not filthy rich.

Is that their intent? To keep the lines short on the ferry to Nantucket?

Jim, you've made some good points here. As often is the case, the negative responses to your post avoid those points and deflect with moral equivalence, nitpicking about verbal faults or moving on to other arguments.

To reflect on, and support, what you tried to point out as illogical and ignorant comments by Redford, maybe a closer analysis of his quoted text would help.

"It is so paralyzed, and the worst of it is that it's paralyzed by intention. There's a body of congressional people that want to paralyze the system."

First of all, what does he mean by "the system"? Does he mean the system that was given to us by the Constitution? If so, which body of congressional people intentionally paralyze and destroy that system? If he means to imply that it's the Tea Party Republicans, he's certainly picking on the wrong folks. They're the only congressional body which is trying to preserve what's left of that system. As for the rest of the congressional body, it seems to adhere to an insider system of scratch my back of legislative wants and I'll scratch yours. Of course, the Republicans who play that game always seem to lose, getting very little, if anything, and giving up the house to the Democrats. If you're a progressive, which Redford seems to be, that's a good system. I can see how he doesn't want it paralyzed.

The Constitution, actually, built in the possibility of "paralysis" with a system of checks and balances. Paralysis against harmful and unconstitutional legislation is a good thing. As you point out, paralyzing a Hitleresque system would be good. But, the congressional body that Redford seems to favor doesn't want to be checked or balanced out of whatever idea their mastermind wishes to impose on the rest of us. And, of course, since they are the smart ones, whatever idea they have is good.

He adds "I think what's unfortunately underneath it is racism involved, which is really awful."

As you point out, Byrd was a clan member (and yes a grand poohbah of the KKK, wizard or some other high position), but Spence points out that was decades ago and that he reformed. Of course, progressives, if they ever had a fault, are capable of reforming. "Conservatives," on the other hand, can never do so. Because, after all, they are by definition "conservative"--resistant to change. Well, there's an irony there. Politically "conservative" means to preserve individual freedom, which is the most potent force for change.

But there is also an ignorance, willful or not, or a hypocrisy, in Redford's contention. Not only is he actually ignorant of the motivations of that "body of congress" which he rebukes (how could he possibly know unless he's an actual mind reader--and a telepathic one at that), but he is ignorant, or hypocritically dismissive, of the racism that exists in the rest of the congressional body, and the entire body politic. The black caucus for instance. And the voting blocks for the Democrat party such as the unions, have many racists in them. They just co-exist for political reasons which does not make them any less racists. But, I guess, only the supposed racism in that particular congressional body which Redford doesn't like is the "really awful" racism.

Then he says "It's not just racism. I think it's a group of people that are so afraid of change and they're so narrow-minded that when--you see, some people when they see change coming get so threatened by change they get angry and terrorized and they get vicious."

As you point out, it is not change that is threatening, but change for the worse, even change that threatens terror and tyranny against the people. But the progressive mantra includes "change" as a higher order ideology. "Change" is not a specific, it is a general ideological concept which embraces movement to newer, smarter, more progressive, and the wholly good. If for you it is "narrow-minded" to resist change for its own sake, then you are well on your way to being progressive. And those who "paralyze" that change may anger and terrorize you.

But to dwell on the simple-minded thoughts of a super-wealthy actor who lives on a 5,500 acre property in Utah, and who supports the nature conservancy, not of course to protect his own property and wealth from encroachment of the lumpen American "middle class", but for the good of all society (anybody been to Utah lately to see the wonders?) is a bit of distraction from reality. Then again, if hordes of folks actually did go there and tromp on the "pristine" beauty, requiring all the necessities and niceties of vacationers such as more roads, motels, hotels, airports, restaurants, retail stores, gas stations, etc., it would kind of mess with the conservancy stuff. Better to leave it to the few who can afford 5,500 acre places. Don't even think about building those rows and rows of middle-class houses and gated communities, and certainly not "lower class" ticky-tack houses and progressive high rise tenements for low income people. Nor all the commercial enterprises to support it. Better to leave it to the few who already live there, so long as they don't mess with the pristine nature and demand more capitalist entrepreneurs to raise their standards and make wealth available for their children. And to a few more wealthy large land owners. So long as not too many 5,500 or more acre plots are carved out of the pristine land.

Better to leave it to a few Redfords.

[Jim in CT]

Damn that was impressive Detbuch.

PS you are a loathsome, contemptible racist, in case you didn't know.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

He didn't claim register Republicans are all racist. What are you reading?

He said that SOME in Congress are motivated partly by racism. On this he's 100% correct. He also said some motivation is a reluctance to change. On this he's also 100% correct. He's it's akin to saying they oppose Obama because they're conservatives.

Oh, the horror.

-spence

Actually I would wager a higher percentage of democrats are motivated by racism, and I would win
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Name 1 please......

How about anyone in Congress who's uttered a Birther remark. I'd list them but it would take a while.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Jim, you've made some good points here. As often is the case, the negative responses to your post avoid those points and deflect with moral equivalence, nitpicking about verbal faults or moving on to other arguments.

Or, a lack of reading comprehension.

To reflect on, and support, what you tried to point out as illogical and ignorant comments by Redford, maybe a closer analysis of his quoted text would help.

This is great. A celeb makes statements to the Hollywood Reporter and it's worthy of closer analysis.

First of all, what does he mean by "the system"? Does he mean the system that was given to us by the Constitution? If so, which body of congressional people intentionally paralyze and destroy that system? If he means to imply that it's the Tea Party Republicans, he's certainly picking on the wrong folks. They're the only congressional body which is trying to preserve what's left of that system. As for the rest of the congressional body, it seems to adhere to an insider system of scratch my back of legislative wants and I'll scratch yours. Of course, the Republicans who play that game always seem to lose, getting very little, if anything, and giving up the house to the Democrats. If you're a progressive, which Redford seems to be, that's a good system. I can see how he doesn't want it paralyzed.

The "system" is obviously the entire thing. Not an academic perspective but the real world. My take on the Hollywood Reporter coverage is that he's frustrated with the obstructionist Right's position on Obama and how it's hampering our government from operating to the point of shutdown and real economic damage. Some of this is racism (or do we let Kenyan sensibilities dictate the behavior of Americans?) and some is a resistance to any change.

Does Redford think that basic ideological differences aren't also at play? I don't know, the Hollywood Reporter doesn't appear to have asked that question.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Or, a lack of reading comprehension.


This is great. A celeb makes statements to the Hollywood Reporter and it's worthy of closer analysis.


The "system" is obviously the entire thing. Not an academic perspective but the real world. My take on the Hollywood Reporter coverage is that he's frustrated with the obstructionist Right's position on Obama and how it's hampering our government from operating to the point of shutdown and real economic damage. Some of this is racism (or do we let Kenyan sensibilities dictate the behavior of Americans?) and some is a resistance to any change.

Does Redford think that basic ideological differences aren't also at play? I don't know, the Hollywood Reporter doesn't appear to have asked that question.

-spence

"This is great. A celeb makes statements to the Hollywood Reporter and it's worthy of closer analysis."

You analyzed it more closely, and quickly concluded that it was a benign statement. Now that you cannot defend it, it's not worth talking about.

"How about anyone in Congress who's uttered a Birther remark. I'd list them but it would take a while."

Birthers, like Redford, make kooky accusations with no evidence. How about the people who said the Gulf War was launched for oil, or for Haliburton profits. No evidence to support that. Are those people racist, anti-white, since they made baseless accusations against a white president? Using your 'logic', I'm not sure there's a difference.

"Some of this is racism "

again, zero evidence. Zip.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Or, a lack of reading comprehension.


This is great. A celeb makes statements to the Hollywood Reporter and it's worthy of closer analysis.


The "system" is obviously the entire thing. Not an academic perspective but the real world. My take on the Hollywood Reporter coverage is that he's frustrated with the obstructionist Right's position on Obama and how it's hampering our government from operating to the point of shutdown and real economic damage. Some of this is racism (or do we let Kenyan sensibilities dictate the behavior of Americans?) and some is a resistance to any change.

Does Redford think that basic ideological differences aren't also at play? I don't know, the Hollywood Reporter doesn't appear to have asked that question.

-spence

"shutdown and real economic damage"

$17 trillion in debt (and at least another $50 trillion in entitlement liabilities) isn't potentially damaging. But a temporary shutdown is too damaging to allow. Got it, check...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Or, a lack of reading comprehension.

Jim made some good points.

This is great. A celeb makes statements to the Hollywood Reporter and it's worthy of closer analysis.

Perhaps your suffering from a mild form of reading comprehension. I know you're very busy. Maybe it was just an oversight. But if you're going to bother to post stuff, maybe you should exert a little more effort out of respect to others who will read it. I did say "But to dwell on the simple-minded thoughts of a super-wealthy actor . .. is a bit of distraction from reality." No need to add superfluous comments to your necessarily brief offerings due to the little time you have to give them. As you like to say, pay attention.

The "system" is obviously the entire thing.

So the entire thing does not include the Constitution? Oh, that's right, for you it wouldn't. The "entire thing" would be wrapped up in a few folks up there in the heights of D.C. making deals which direct what us folks in the rest of the country must do for the good of the "entire thing" including what we must buy.

Not an academic perspective but the real world.

So the real world does not include academic perspectives? I thought you liked smart stuff, and I thought you were very partial to perspectives. Maybe just the smart stuff and perspectives you agree with?

My take on the Hollywood Reporter coverage is that he's frustrated with the obstructionist Right's position on Obama and how it's hampering our government from operating to the point of shutdown and real economic damage.

Ahh . . . that's right. To have a perspective other than that of the folks who comprise "the entire thing" would be obstructionist. It would hamper our "entire thing" from telling the rest of us what to do, from operating to the point of a fictitious shutdown, and it would hamper the entire thing from wracking up more debt on top of the already amassed debt which is unsustainable in the way the "entire thing" operates. We must not hamper or obstruct the "entire thing" from its mission to control our lives (for our own benefit) since we are not capable in this new, smart world of centrally planned fiscal obsolescence.

Some of this is racism (or do we let Kenyan sensibilities dictate the behavior of Americans?) and some is a resistance to any change.

Is there something wrong with being Kenyan? Is it racist to call someone a Kenyan? Is it some frightfully bad condition that a mention of such heritage is tantamount to racism? Is it worse than being Canadian?

And . . . uhhh . . . "any" change is a bit too expansive. How about resistance to bad change. Or is that also racist?

Does Redford think that basic ideological differences aren't also at play? I don't know, the Hollywood Reporter doesn't appear to have asked that question.

-spence

Does that preclude perspectives which see ideological differences? Or must we accept Redford's statements as some basic truth and pass it on without comment? That would be a bit tyrannical, wouldn't it? But what's the harm in a little tyranny among friends.

BTW, it was not necessary to point out that the reporter didn't ask that question (as well as many others). I already implied that the interview was very limited when I said " . . . a closer analysis of his [Redford's] QUOTED text. . ." Pay attention. You're too busy to waste words.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Does Redford think that basic ideological differences aren't also at play? I don't know, the Hollywood Reporter doesn't appear to have asked that question.

-spence

Here you stumbled into the truth. Of course ideological differences are at play, and of course Redford wasn't going to talk about it.

Why?

Because it's easier for Redford (and for most liberals) to lob unsubstantiated charges of racism, than it is to try and explain why their ideology (spend with no regard to consequences, slaughter the unborn, paralyze the poor, no recognition of the notion of responsibility) is superior to an alternate ideology.

Redford calls the conservatives racist, and you clearly agreed with him. The ironic thing is that it's liberal economic principles that are destroying the black culture, and it is conservative principles (family, hard work, responsibility, love) that represents exactly what the black culture, any poor person really, needs to embrace to escape poverty.

Almost every big city votes Democratic. Almost every big city is far worse off today than it was 25 years ago. You don't need to be Steven Hawking to connect those dots.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

How about anyone in Congress who's uttered a Birther remark. I'd list them but it would take a while.

-spence

I only asked you to name 1...

...apparently that would take too much time but you have plenty of time for all of your other nonsense

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"This is great. A celeb makes statements to the Hollywood Reporter and it's worthy of closer analysis."

You analyzed it more closely, and quickly concluded that it was a benign statement. Now that you cannot defend it, it's not worth talking about.

Priceless.

Makes you wonder why he bothered to engage in the conversation. What was it that Spence said in another thread--plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

I only asked you to name 1...

...apparently that would take too much time but you have plenty of time for all of your other nonsense

Yeah, it might take a lot of time to look up a member of congress that made a birther remark. But I'd be interested in why birther remarks are racist. Weren't they about Obama supposedly not being born here therefor not being qualified to be POTUS? Oh, that's right, it couldn't be something as simple and straightforward as that. It had to be some code--like "Obama is black." Funny, I thought everyone knew that long before he was elected, and before any birther remarks were made. Maybe it was just to reinforce the obvious fact. Americans can be stupid. Especially "conservatives" who are racists and must be reminded that Obama is black so that nobody, no racist, would accidentally vote for him.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"This is great. A celeb makes statements to the Hollywood Reporter and it's worthy of closer analysis."

.

Yes Jim, don't you realize that former members of their HS drama club had
a handle on reality then, and still do?
Whatever playing and pretending to be someone else has to do with reality
and makes them experts on what's going on in the real world is beyond me.
They live in a world of let's pretend.

[Fly Rod]

Senator Robert Byrd a democrat was the biggest racist a high ranking KKK member....Redford must not remember him.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The "system" is obviously the entire thing. Not an academic perspective but the real world.

Those two sentences are such contradictions that it shouldn't be needed to point it out. But, beyond leaving "academic perspectives" out of the entire thing including the "real world," there is also the paradox of to whom belongs the academic perspective and for whom the real world is the model and cause for government.

Your assumption, I assume, is that the real world is the unhampered cooperation of rulers and their expert cohorts to mold society in light of their superior wisdom. Not by any guiding principles, but by newly concocted responses to old problems, the newer the better.

And that older, presumably defunct, prescriptions and restrictions such as the Constitution are no longer real, since not followed, but merely academic conversation pieces which obstruct the progress of the wise rulers by binding them to procedures that don't apply to the modern world.

The thing is . . . the Constitution was based on experience, on how the "real world" had historically operated, on the reality of human nature, and on the promotion and preservation of that common piece of human nature which history and experience taught was a yearning for freedom. It was, at the time of the Declaration, and is now, still the most advanced governing principle.

The Progressive idea of rule by smart intellectuals and technocrats unhampered by real world precedence, but guided by opinion based on untried, or tried and failed because of incompetence, efforts, is actually the more "academic perspective" And, ironically, it is not even newer than the American constitutional system, but as old as human tyranny.

My take on the Hollywood Reporter coverage is that he's frustrated with the obstructionist Right's position on Obama and how it's hampering our government from operating to the point of shutdown and real economic damage.

-spence

The "obstructionist Right's position" and the hampering of government by shutdown and the notion of "real economic damage" are obviously your perspectives. The Hollywood Reporter didn't mention any of that stuff. What bug he/it had up its butt is still mysteriously embedded there. Amazingly narrow of you to exclude the "Right's position" from the "entire thing" and to cast it out as part of some academic perspective. The constitutional basis for the Tea Party opposition, or "obstruction" as you put it, is far more intrinsic to American political "reality" than the phony whims and constructs of progressive top down ordering of people's lives. If the "entire thing" is what you vision, then the "vector" is toward economic collapse fueled by a debt not based on economic principles, but that is irresponsibly compounded by larger and larger impossible amounts. If their is no return to basic principles of American government, but continued rule by unprincipled power mongers who sap the spirit and responsibility from our people, and who spend the wealth of the nation into oblivion, if that continues, eventual collapse will be followed by despotic rule. And the "real world" will once again have to find its way back toward human dignity and freedom.

[scottw]

right....ignore the..... unsustainable spending levels and debt, growing and unfathomable unfunded obligations, unprecedented continuing actions by the FED....record levels of dependency and continuing stagnation, historic Federal tinkering and thouands and thousands of pages of new regulations...millions not working...and the fraud in and abuse of the system which is operating continuing resolution to continuing resolution with no formal budget for years now

ignore all of this and...

and blame the only guy in the room with his hand up calling for sanity...label him a racist causing real economic damage somehow...this is like an alcoholic or drug addict labeling the family member that's trying to help an "obstructionist"....they keep pestering you for more money and when you finally say no...they get belligerent and let fly with all sorts of insults and accusations...blame everyone else for the predicament that they've caused and will continue to prolong if left unabated or aided by enablers who are either weak, naïve or similarly addicted.... the real damage is right in front of their eyes every day but the addiction clouds reality... and so up is down, the inevitable will never materialize, they believe, as long as they remain medicated....the good guys are really the bad guys from the addicts perspective.....cult worship has a similar effect



stupid or evil....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

the real damage is right in front of their eyes every day but the addiction clouds reality...

....

The damage is there to see, all right. Black illegitimacy rates over 70%. Big cities, that have voted Democrat for decades, on the verge of bankruptcy thanks to promises to labor unions. How many times, exactly, does liberal economics have to fail, before we conclude that it's ill-conceived?

That's why sometimes I wonder if liberal leaders are doing this intentionally. Because I'm not sure anyone could be that willfully ignorant of what is right in front of their faces. Maybe their goal is to keep Watch Hill and Nantucket and Beverly Hills, free of the riff-raff. I mean, I worked in downtoiwn Hartford for 10 years. How can anyone who lives there, conclude that the one-party rule that exists, has done them any good? It's an absoilute wasteland, yet every November, they vote unanimously for the same liberals.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yeah, it might take a lot of time to look up a member of congress that made a birther remark. But I'd be interested in why birther remarks are racist. Weren't they about Obama supposedly not being born here therefor not being qualified to be POTUS? Oh, that's right, it couldn't be something as simple and straightforward as that. It had to be some code--like "Obama is black." Funny, I thought everyone knew that long before he was elected, and before any birther remarks were made. Maybe it was just to reinforce the obvious fact. Americans can be stupid. Especially "conservatives" who are racists and must be reminded that Obama is black so that nobody, no racist, would accidentally vote for him.

The effort to undermine Obama via his race has been very consistent and well coordinated. He's a Muslim, he's a Kenyan, he wasn't born in the USA, he's not like us, he doesn't share our values etc...

If Obama was a white guy named Steve this strategy wouldn't take. It's amazing though how far this scare tactic has went...with no evidence it's almost to the point of being mainstream in some circles.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The effort to undermine Obama via his race has been very consistent and well coordinated. He's a Muslim, he's a Kenyan, he wasn't born in the USA, he's not like us, he doesn't share our values etc...

Islam is not a race. Kenyan is not a race. Being born outside of the USA is not a race. He's not like us is not a race. He doesn't share our values etc... is not a race.

If Obama was a white guy named Steve this strategy wouldn't take. It's amazing though how far this scare tactic has went...with no evidence it's almost to the point of being mainstream in some circles.

-spence

Being a white guy is a race, and as such, it would take hold as a tactic in the "black community," in the "Hispanic community," etc... And the tactic, even more powerful, because it would take hold not only in those communities but in most others, is to call him a racist. The proof being that he is a white guy named Steve.

And he's a conservative.

[justplugit]

Forget what Redford says, my wife tells me he's busy working on his women's
clothes catalogue.
Listen to Clint, he tells it like it is.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The effort to undermine Obama via his race has been very consistent and well coordinated. -spence

proof?

no one has undermined Obama more than Obama....it happens when you constantly say things that are not true, can't be substantiated and don't come to fruition...

you can probably relate

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

The effort to undermine Obama via his race has been very consistent and well coordinated. He's a Muslim, he's a Kenyan, he wasn't born in the USA, he's not like us, he doesn't share our values etc...

If Obama was a white guy named Steve this strategy wouldn't take. It's amazing though how far this scare tactic has went...with no evidence it's almost to the point of being mainstream in some circles.

-spence

So if you don't share the same values you're a racist now?
Oh and could you give Obama a different hypothetical white guy name please .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The effort to undermine Obama via his race has been very consistent and well coordinated. He's a Muslim, he's a Kenyan, he wasn't born in the USA, he's not like us, he doesn't share our values etc...

If Obama was a white guy named Steve this strategy wouldn't take. It's amazing though how far this scare tactic has went...with no evidence it's almost to the point of being mainstream in some circles.

-spence

Not only are any of the "efforts" you list above not fundamentally about race, but can only be made so by a silly notion that they are code for race. That a code is needed to call attention to Obama's race is ridiculous on its face, and on Obama's face. He is obviously black, everyone who was not blind and didn't live in a cave where there was no information about outside activities, including politics, knew he was black (maybe were not quite up to his being half white). Much was, and is, made about him being the first black President. His race was never hidden or obscure, and that a need for some "code" to call attention to it is absurd.

But the convenience of pretending such a code exists, of using the "race card," in order not only to deflect from the actual statements or opinions about Obama relating to his competency for the office of President, is the real "scare tactic." It is a real tactic for which there is no evidence and which is "mainstream in some circles"--as pointed out in this article:http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/201.../?subscriber=1

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Not only are any of the "efforts" you list above not fundamentally about race, but can only be made so by a silly notion that they are code for race. That a code is needed to call attention to Obama's race is ridiculous on its face, and on Obama's face. He is obviously black, everyone who was not blind and didn't live in a cave where there was no information about outside activities, including politics, knew he was black (maybe were not quite up to his being half white). Much was, and is, made about him being the first black President. His race was never hidden or obscure, and that a need for some "code" to call attention to it is absurd.

But the convenience of pretending such a code exists, of using the "race card," in order not only to deflect from the actual statements or opinions about Obama relating to his competency for the office of President, is the real "scare tactic." It is a real tactic for which there is no evidence and which is "mainstream in some circles"--as pointed out in this article:http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/201.../?subscriber=1

This is completely missing the point. It's not about other elements being "code" for Obama being black. It's about using his race as "code" for all that other stuff.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

It's about using his race as "code" for all that other stuff.

-spence

....

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

....

I know, it's hard to fathom isn't it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device